ChrisW: most people are tired of
this issue.
... proposed resolution from last week

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: to close
issue 44 by removing named argument Uniterms from BLD.

ChrisW: most people are leaning
simplifying things

Harold: discussion on the mailing
list
... several examples
... new insights
... point is RIF is an interchange format
... not putting the burden on the translators

ChrisW: any other engines than OO
jDrew

Harold: Mikel is not here, but he
confirmed that rel. databases are a use case

csma: I responder to Michael and
made a proposal
... small burden on the translators for named arguments
... anyway you would put the burden on the translators, but not
on the translators of systems without named arguments

Harold: I think you proposal
should be discussed

<Harold> p[bar,foo]("abc",
2)

Harold: but there was no
discussion yet

csma: proposal is that, if there
is standard uniterm then there is an optional list of arguments
which might be ignored
... the burden is on systems who support slooted uniterms
... systems which use slotted uniterms could rebuild from the
list
... others might simply ignore it
... very small burden on the translators from slotted uniterms
to RIF

Harold: Don't understand that
this meta data could be ignored
... remind you on signature, ignoring the signature means
loosing information

csma: could be ignored by systems
which are not able to use it

<sandro> (the proposal was
mine, I guess, but came up in conversation with csma)

Harold: in the eMail there seems
to be a contradicting between meta data

csma: yes, it's Sandros
proposal

Harold: in this proposal you can
no longer distinguish from the ordered and loose
information

csma: if it does not fly we can
not use it

<sandro> good point, Harold
--- it's a lossy transformation, because (a->x, b->y) and
(x,y) appear the same to systems ignoring the slot names.

csma: then only one proposal
remains

Axel: I do not object slotted
uniterms
... they are clearly defined

<DaveReynolds> Sandro/Harold:
do systems really use the same name for both positional and
named uniterms? Surely renaming apart would be needed in such
cases anyway?

Axel: I don't have a stron
oppinion on that

ChrisW: you would not
object
... Igor would remove its objection

Michael: Don't understand why we
should remove them

<AxelPolleres> +1 to Michael,
I think they are simple enough.

ChrisW: reason --> simplify
BLD

Michael: But they don't have to
support

<sandro> -1 mkifer

Michael: they don't have
implement that- BLD is a container

<AxelPolleres> +1 to Michael
again, I support that BLD is a container.

Michael: different vendors have
to support the dialects they want

<csma> -1 to everubody not
being required to implement all of BLD

<sandro> -1! BLD has to be
implementable.

<Harold> Dave, BLD does not
differentiate 'alphabets' of Constants used for positional vs.
used for named uniterms (it's Hilog-like and uniform).

<DougL> -1 to Michael

<AxelPolleres> Was there
anybody who said they would implementa all of BLD?

ChrisW: your are supposed to
translate a RIF rule set into your own language

<josb> -1 to Michael

<sandro> If there isn't,
Axel, then lets stop working on BLD right now.

ChrisW: translate from BLD into
language

Michael: you might translate from
a sub dialect

<Harold> We need to define
Core as *subset* of BLD.

ChrisW: there are no
subdialects

<AxelPolleres> I anyway think
that BLD is ready and we should go on and define core and
extensibility for the remaining time.

Michael: With framework we can
easily define a dialect

<AxelPolleres> so, sandro: I
agree.

<Harold> At the last f2f we
decided to work on a Core.

csma: you can define any dialect,
but then there is interoperability

<sandro> Also -- we have a
resolution to have a "handful of dialects"

Michael: suppose you remove the
named arguments

<AxelPolleres> yes, but we
discuss still for wweeks now nitty gritty details on
changing/cutting BLD.

Michael: it is a burden to
translate into this cut-down BLD

<Harold> Core = BLD -
Equality - Frames - Slots

csma: if there is a need for
additional features we will later add this feature

<DaveReynolds> Harold - I
understand that, my point was that I would imagine most system
and most users would use different names for the two different
cases so the times where there is an aliasing clash to resolve
seem very rare and easy to handle

Michael: Why then care about
equality etc.

<AxelPolleres> harold: -
fuinction symbols

Doug: appearance of simplicity
does not mean

<AxelPolleres> I can take
over...

<AxelPolleres> scribenick:
AxelPolleres

<scribe> scribe: Axel
Polleres

harold, can you repeat that on the irc?

<Harold> So Doug wants to
keep slotted uniterms.

<DougL> Correct

<Harold> I want to empasize
that we will need a susbet, the Core, which will not have
Equality and will not have slots. So we can and should keept
both in BLD.

Harold: What about to propose a
resolution to leave them in?

<Harold> Yes,

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: to close
issue 44 by removing named argument Uniterms from BLD.

so, we had two objections against removing and
one against leaving them...

so, we should ALSO ask the other way
around.

<sandro> 0

<DaveReynolds> +0

<josb> +1

-0

<Harold> -1

<DougL> -1

<sandro> (+1 from Gary)

<Michael_Kifer> -1

<csma> +1

<mdean> 0

<sandro> Gary: if we have
N.A.U's we really have to tell people how to interchange them
with normal Uniterms. I would probably object to leaving them
in.

<sandro> Gary: Implementors
will go off and do what they want, without interoperation.

<josb> How come we go from 1
person objecting to 3 persons objecting?

yes, it is not clear how these are related...
so ... what?

josb, I even changed my objection from -1 to
-0 this time, so more people switched to leaving them in. I
honestly really think we should close this issue and work on
with what we have in order to not loose more time.

<DaveReynolds> +1 to Gary, a
well articulated explanation of what interoperability and RIF
is about

<josb> Well, there was never
any agreement within the working group to include named
argument terms. So, there's not really any reason to include
them.

we do care because BLD makes up a clean
implementable framework for logical dialects!

josb, that's why I said that we should propose
a resolution the other way around, and see what happens
then.

<Harold> Chris, what about
Equality?

<Harold> We dont know if
anyone will implement it completely?

<csma> harold, there will be
a Core, without equality (but without logic fct either)

<Harold> But it's in BLD
(because we know it will be out of Core).

<Harold> Same should be kept
for Slotted Uniterms: they are MUCH more easier to
implement.

<Harold> We can hardly keep
Equality but omit Slotted Uniterms.

<sandro> AxelPolleres, I
thought you were scribing.....?

<csma> actually, if we wanted
to have more in BLD than Core+equality+logic fct, that would be
negation, I guess, not NAU...

<DougL> +1

ChrisW: let us see how the
proposal works the other way artound.

<sandro> STRAW-PROPOSED: to
close issue 44 by KEEPING named argument Uniterms in BLD.

MichaelK/ChrisW/sandro: some discussion before
on whether BLD should be implementable fragment for all for
interchange or not

<DougL> I won't be here next
week, probably (trip), but please consider my proxy for it as
+1

<sandro> 0

<DaveReynolds> -0

<GaryHallmark> -1

<Harold> +1

<Michael_Kifer> +1

<josb> -0.6

+1

<mdean> 0

<Harold> (+1 from
AdrianP)

ChrisW: Harold and Doug, neither
of you objected last time.
... something changed?

DougL: saw some useful examples
when I further thought about it.

ChrisW: any specific languages
you're thinking of?

<Harold> Use Cases: CLIPS,
Relational Algebra, 4 from NRC.

DougL: uncompatible evolution for
languages/rulebases with large numbers of arguments.

<Harold> CLIPS is supporting
slotted uniterms.

ChrisW: Is there anything except
ooJDrew?

DougL: cyc? supports named args
in uniterms.

Harold: I rediscovered some use
cases.

<Harold> Keys (local to a
table) are not OIDs (global).

GaryHallmark: All use cases
typically have hidden some kind of object identity.

MichealK: the issue is not that
we can map it, the issue is, what does it take to do the
mapping... you need for instance function symbols.
... why then have features like frames, etc at all, all can be
done with positional terms.

GaryHallwmark: my system only has
frames, no uniterms.

MichealK: if we mangle features
like frames and uniterms, we will loose roundtrippability.

MichealK: but if this ok, then
simply let's choose potitional uniterms.

ChrisW: Let's move on.

(scribe cap off): why not just leaving it, we
had two polls pointing in this direction?

OWL - RDF compatibility

ChrisW: Let's talk about RIF-OWL
compatibility task force.

josb: Last time I talked about
OWL full vs OWL DL compatibility.
... annotation properties are different from binary
preedicates, so another possiblity is ignoring them

Builtins

ChrisW: let's move on to issue
40.
... What is the status of errors?

Christian: ... summarizes 3
proposals.

ChrisW: first-order or third
truth-value? opinions?

josb: the issue only comes up if
we talk about partial functions.
... for total functions, there is no problem.

michaelk: this is not true.
... it is not only for functions, but also for predicates,
which are only partially defined.
... most systems give errors for e.g. adding strings with
numbers, so if we define some different (2-valued) behaviot for
these predicates, we crate additional burden for
implementors.

ChrisW: christian just said that
we shouldn't fix it in the model theory.

josb: I havean idea here...
whenever a variable assignment is not allowed, the satisfaction
is not defined.

<trackbot-ng> Created
ACTION-408 - Draft an emali separating the different issues in
the question about fct vs predicate forms for builtins [on Axel
Polleres - due 2008-02-05].

ChrisW: we will not spend much
time on the named arg issue nextr week ,but need to turn to
more urghent issues.
... adjorn.
... publication plan status?

michealk: did a lot of work on
the framework recently. BLD should be short base on that.
... framweork by end of the week (sunday)
... short BLD will then be much shorter than the
original.
... I am not deleting stuff, but create new documents
(copy-pasting).
... hope also BLD will be in shape by end of the week.
... will publish/adapt links on the wiki.

ChrisW: keep link BLD for the new
one, and have a link oldBLD for the old one.

Sandro: on wiki migration.

MichaelK: I would prefer to work
on html anyway.

sandro: in mediawiki you can use
a flag to use simply normal html.
... I just run through wikiTR and then put the html into
mediawiki.